Talk:U.S. military tribunals in Guantanamo Bay lack Congressional authorization, violate U.S. law and Geneva Conventions

Rename
I renamed this page - it is very much in question whether the ruling of the Court is that the "are unconstitutional." We are much better off actually following closer to what the court said in the Syllabus - that the court has jurisdiction, that the tribunals require specific authorization by Congress, and that they are not implicitly authorized. Trödel 20:27, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't object to the rename, but the military commission for Guantanamo as it exists today (decreed by the President, not sanctioned by Congress) is very much unconstitutional because it was created by the President in excess of his constititutional executive powers. --Deprifry|+T+ 20:42, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * From what I can tell (still reading) the President/Secretary did not even claim that the constitution granted the authority to establish the tribunals, but they were implicit from an Act of Congress. Thus, on could argue (though I think it is a stretch) that the Court ruled that the detaining and trying of prisoners at Guantanamo is constitutional, but they must be tried by under the UCMJ absent the President making an official determination that it is impracticable to apply the normal rules for courts-martial. Trödel 21:01, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The government stance was indeed that the joint resolution gave them the power to establish the tribunal. But I think what is relating to our discussion is this (I'm cutting the context here to keep it a reasonable length but the sentences are on p. 27, 2nd paragraph):

"The Constitution makes the President the “Commander in Chief” of the Armed Forces, Art. II, §2, cl. 1, but vests in Congress the powers to “declare War . . . and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water,” Art. I, §8, cl. 11, to “raise and support Armies,” id., cl. 12, to “define and punish . . . Offences against the Law of Nations,” id., cl. 10, and “To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces,” id., cl. 14."


 * This is where the problem lies, IMHO. The president believes that conspiracy should be tried in these commissions, but by doing so he defines a offence against the law of nations which is not within his authority but is Congress' prerogative. --Deprifry|+T+ 21:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

"For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the military commission convened to try Hamdan lacks power to proceed because its structure and procedures violate both the UCMJ and the Geneva Conventions." (page 10)


 * the court did not rule that the commissions require congressional authorisation, it ruled that they lack it. i'll rename accordingly. as quoted above, it also ruled that they violate UCMJ & the Geneva Conventions, the current headline is a corrollory of the judgement issued and is therefore original research, not a reporting of the event. Doldrums 04:18, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I made the use of the abbreviation "U.S." consistent in the headline, which has the side effect of making the headline yet longer by two characters. I think this is the longest headline I've seen - ever. Karen 20:39, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

good article
really well done. Neutralizer 23:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

.fr
editprotected

Hi! Please, modify french interlink: fr:Les tribunaux militaires de Guantanamo doivent avoir l'accord du Congrès. Thanks, ×α£đ~es 00:09, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


 * ✅ Tempodivalse [talk]  00:11, 31 May 2009 (UTC)